2011 Carbon Ranking Report Brics 300

REPORT:
ET BRICS 300
2011 CARBON RANKINGS

WHO WE ARE
ENVIRONMENTAL
INVESTMENT
ORGANISATION
An independent non-profit research organisation
promoting ecological investment systems

WHAT WE DO

ENVIRONMENTAL
TRACKING
ET Carbon Rankings
creating public pressure through the “spotlight effect”

ET Index Series
creating share price incentive through supply & demand pressure

ET Engagement
engaging with companies to improve standards of disclosure & lower emissions

WHY WE DO IT
designed speciﬁcally to reduce
global corporate Greenhouse Gas emissions

info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.uk

The Environmental Investment Organisation (EIO) is an independent
non-proﬁt body that seeks to improve the environmental ‘output’ of the
ﬁnancial system. In recent years this mandate has been focused almost
entirely on the need to tackle the climate crisis.

ET BRICS 300 Carbon Rankings 2011 Report
Autumn 2011

T: +44 208 801 0570
E: info@eio.org.uk
www.eio.org.uk

Foreword
Dear Reader,
Welcome to the ET BRICS 300 Report, one in a series of Regional Carbon Ranking Reports
being released this week and complimenting the release of the ET Global 800 on the 1.11.11.
I think we can all agree that our rapidly changing and interconnected world is full of complex
ecological, economic, social and health problems amongst many others. ‘Progress’ is clearly a
very uneven and unequal process, but such has been the fate of humanity since the beginning
of documented history.
The EIO does not claim to have a solution to any of the aforementioned problems. Instead, its
sole focus is to prevent a problem that we have hardly seen the beginning of, but which, if
allowed to spiral out of control, is almost guaranteed to make every other problem worse.
No less an authority than the US Department of Defense has described the likely consequences
of severe climate change as a “threat multiplier”. In plain language, whatever problems we
already have, and no-one could overstate them, a climate calamity could prove one complex
problem too many.
Some may confidently predict our ability to adapt, but that theory has never been applied in
practice to a planet made up of over 150 independent nation states and 7 billion people, and
rising.
Perhaps the greatest risk we face in dealing with this situation is the delusion that our current
global political system is guaranteed to solve this problem. It is not.
So, is it possible to turn this impending disaster on its head and galvanise the entire global
business and financial system in a new direction? Many individuals are already ‘doing their bit’
on multiple fronts all around the world. Progressive corporations and organisations are already
making great efforts to address not only carbon emissions but broader environmental and
human priorities.
But against this giant problem of climate change, surely we need an extra push. Something so
in tune with the existing system that it can get right inside, like the famous “Trojan Horse” of
ancient history, and put a stop to the madness of human induced climate change before it is
too late. For surely the issue here is the time line. If the conclusions of our scientists are to be
shown any respect, then there is no more time to emit and massive action is required now.
But what kind of action? Skillful action, if we are to carry people with us. For example, we do
not need to decimate beautiful countryside with giant wind turbines when there are hundreds of
square miles of empty ocean just waiting to be exploited by offshore wind farms benefiting from
economies of scale which can hardly be imagined.
We need to think big and act fast, but not in haste. Every action has trade-offs and we certainly
do not want to solve one problem by creating new ones.


Problem solving is as much an Art as a Science and so is the case with the subject matter of
Foreword
this report. In an ideal world every company would be reporting accurate and comprehensive
Scope 1, 2 and 3 carbon emissions data. With such information available the ET Carbon
Ranking would be able to very effectively reward emission reduction and penalise polluters.
However, despite the very serious risks we are taking with our climate system, this information
does not exist.
The EIO does not pretend that its system is perfect, or that a perfect system is even possible. It
is a pragmatic and practical system working with the latest available data. It is our best effort to
order this information in a logical manner. If the ranking and the indexes they are designed for
can create incentives for higher universal standards of reporting followed by radical emission
reduction strategies, it will have served its purpose. Whatever controversies are encountered in
the process will be more than justified by such a result.
On the 4th October 2011 the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's new Scope 3 Corporate Accounting
Standard was released. The EIO has always stated that Scope 3 is an essential component of
the GHG Reporting process and that once the standard was released our Rankings would be
adjusted to incentivise full Scope 3 disclosure.
We have fulfilled this pledge and wasted no time in doing so. The intensity metric now used to
compile the Ranking includes a weighting for Scope 3 based on the worst case benchmark
company for its broad sector. Additionally, we have rewarded companies over and above their
emission intensity according to the number of Scope 3 categories reported.
As stated in my foreword to our first Reports on the ET Europe 300 and ET UK 100 Carbon
Rankings, the chasm between public policy, public understanding, corporate behaviour and
scientific reality is extraordinary and profound. The need for a practical mechanism to work
quickly, circumventing the aforementioned log jam, is immense.
It may be true that “not everything that can be counted, counts, or that everything that counts,
can be counted” but we can at least put the numbers we do have to good use.
Michael Gill,
Strategic Director & Founder, The Environmental Investment Organisation
October 2011


CONTENTS 3
FOREWORD TO REPORT
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
CARBON RANKING METHODOLOGY
7
SPOTLIGHT ON SCOPE 3
10
SPOTLIGHT ON INFERENCE
12
RANKING ANALYSIS
14
GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
17
EMISSIONS LANDSCAPE
20
SECTORAL ANALYSIS
31
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
34
KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
35
REPORTING LANDSCAPE
36
EXEMPLARY REPORT & GRI TEMPLATE
38
REPORTING EXAMPLES
40
REPORTING GUIDANCE
43
ET INDEX SERIES
45
GLOSSARY & BIBLIOGRAPHY
46


EXECUTIVE 4
SUMMARY
The ET Carbon Rankings serve the twin purpose of
encouraging transparency through making THE RANKINGS ARE BASED ON THE
emissions data more publicly accessible, while also FOLLOWING CORE PRINCIPLES:
laying the foundations for the ET Index Series, a
market mechanism designed to tackle emissions
within a rapid time-frame. ‣ DATA USED IN THE RANKINGS MUST BE
With the introduction of the long awaited New PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND THEREFORE
Scope 3 Standard from the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) FULLY TRANSPARENT.
Protocol on the 4th October, the EIO has taken a
proactive approach to incentivising companies to ‣ IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF
adopt this important new standard in GHG
CLIMATE CHANGE, THE RANKINGS’
Reporting. The ﬁnalised standard has been the
result of a three year global multi-stakeholders PRIMARY OBJECTIVE MUST BE TO
process that included more than 2,300 participants ENCOURAGE DISCLOSURE.
and road-tested by 60 companies in 17 countries.
It has long been the EIO’s stated view that Scope 1 ‣ DATA WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY AN
& 2 emissions do not in themselves provide an INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY WILL ALWAYS
accurate picture of a company’s carbon impact and BE RANKED ABOVE DATA WHICH HAS NOT.
therefore a bold approach needs to be taken in
distinguishing between those companies reporting
Scope 3 and those that are not. ‣ COMPANIES HONEST ENOUGH TO
DISCLOSE THEIR TOTAL EMISSIONS MUST
This latest set of Carbon Rankings build on the
NOT BE PENALISED FOR DOING SO
methodology established previously for the ET UK
100 and ET Europe 300, launched in April 2011, RELATIVE TO THOSE WHO FAIL TO
where companies were placed into one of four DISCLOSE.
Disclosure and Veriﬁcation categories based on
their Scope 1 & 2 emissions, and then ranked by ‣ IN ORDER TO BE FULLY EFFECTIVE, THE
carbon intensity (tonnes of CO2 equivalent per
RANKINGS MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
million US dollars of turnover: tCO2e/$M turnover).
THE FULL SCOPE OF A COMPANY’S
Where data is incomplete or not reported, CARBON EMISSIONS, INCLUDING SCOPE 3.
companies are benchmarked against their sectoral
competitors using the highest reported emissions
intensity for that sector. Companies in each
category are then ranked according to their
emissions intensity across the three Scopes.
Additionally, within their respective Disclosure
Categories, companies are advantaged according
to the number of Scope 3 categories disclosed,
over and above their intensity.
Please see the methodology section for a fuller
explanation.


EXECUTIVE 5
SUMMARY
Key Findings Starting with a surprise result, the 2011 ET BRICS
300 Carbon Ranking is topped by Gold Fields, a
‣ 11% of companies publicly disclose South African mining company. However, this is
complete and independently verified explained due to it being the only company in the
Scope 1 and 2 emissions data BRICS 300 which discloses eight Scope 3
Categories. It therefore earns its top spot under the
‣ 66% of companies do not publicly EIO’s methodology, which rewards companies for
disclose their emissions data their Scope 3 disclosure. It is followed by banking
giant Santander Brazil and the Brazilian mining
‣ 23% of companies in BRICS report company, Vale, both of whom disclose six Scope 3
Scope 3 categories, within a range of categories. However, since Santander has an
one to six categories emissions intensity of 103.8 tCO2e/$M turnover,
compared with 4,672.3 tCO2e/$M turnover for
‣ 6 out of 300 companies report five or Vale, Santander gains the advantage.
more Scope 3 categories. The top 10 is dominated by seven Brazilian
companies; with two South African companies and
‣ Gold Fields tops the ET BRICS 300 one Indian company also making the grade.
Carbon Ranking, followed closely by
Perhaps again surprisingly, the first Russian
Santander Brazil company, TNK-BP Holdings, enters the Ranking at
‣ 23rd with an emissions intensity of 3,027.9 tCO2e/
The biggest absolute emitter for
$M turnover. This is because it is the only Russian
which information was available was
company to provide complete and verified data.
Sasol, followed by Petrobras, with The first Chinese company to enter the ranking,
Scope 1 & 2 emissions of 74,976,000 Hong Kong based CLP Holdings, comes in at 30th,
and 62,840,000 (tCO2e/$M turnover), despite declaring high absolute Scope 1 and 2
respectively emissions of 41,793,000 tCO2e, equating to a
Scope 1 and 2 intensity of 5,561.69 tCO2e/$M
turnover. However, its data is complete and
verified, and the company is thus rewarded for its
commendable transparency.
All of the top 10 companies earn their place as the
only companies across the entire region to disclose
three or more Scope 3 emissions categories as well
as having at least their Scope 1 & 2 emissions data
independently verified.
Among those companies in the ET Carbon
Rankings’ first Disclosure Category who do not
report on Scope 3 emissions but have Scope 1 and
2 emissions data independently verified, the top
performers can be found in positions 18, 19 and
20. These are ABSA Group (South Africa), Barath
Petroleum (India) and Tractebel (Brazil).
The best placed company in the ET Carbon
Rankings’ second Disclosure Category, unverified
but complete data, comes in at position 34. This
is Massmart, a South African Consumer Services
company, which disclosed six Scope 3 categories.

info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.com

EXECUTIVE 6
SUMMARY
Its emissions data was not verified and therefore it Key Reporting Recommendations
did not break into the top category. Had this been
the case it would have been ranked third. Similarly, ‣ Report Scope 1, 2 & 3 emissions
the second in the unverified category, CESP, a following GHG Protocol guidelines
Brazilian Alternative Energy company, ranked 35th
and disclosing five Scope 3 categories, would have ‣ Ensure emissions data is publicly
ranked fourth, with a very low overall emissions available in CSR/Sustainability
intensity of across the three Scopes of 95.72 reports/Integrated Annual report and
(tCO2e/$M turnover), thereby beating any other online
company disclosing five Scope 3 categories.
In terms of comparative analysis of reporting trends ‣ Have emissions data verified by an
across the region, South African and Brazilian independent third party
companies clearly lead the field in terms of
disclosing public and complete information, based ‣ Ensure verification statements are
on full disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 according to easily available to the public
the ET Carbon Ranking methodology, with 56%
and 36% of the companies doing so, respectively.
South African companies also perform well in terms
of having their data independently verified, with
31% of the companies reporting complete data
also having at least their Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions data verified, by far and away the
highest of any BRICS country. Brazilian companies
come second on this crucial count, 22% of
companies reporting complete data also having the
data verified. Other countries score very low in
terms of verification, as well as in reporting
complete data, which explains why the top
performers in our ranking are mainly Brazilian and
South African companies.
With 66% of the companies not reporting any data
at all, there is clearly a long way to go in the BRICS Know your Scopes!
emissions reporting landscape.
‣ Scope 1 emissions: All direct
The ET Carbon Rankings make up the first phase
of the Environmental Tracking concept. The EIO emissions
would like to use the Rankings to create a series of ‣ Scope 2 emissions: Indirect
tradeable ET Indexes, providing the investment
emissions generated from the
community with a mainstream tool to encourage
transparency and emission reductions on a global purchase of electricity
scale. It has already demonstrated the ability of ‣ Scope 3 emissions: All other indirect
these ET Indexes to track their conventional
equivalents, through the launch of its two pilot emissions, such as distribution of
indexes, the ET Europe 300 and the ET UK 100 goods, transportation of purchased
earlier this year, based on its previously published goods, transportation of waste,
rankings. These indexes can be described as a disposal of waste, employee
market mechanism designed to lower corporate commuting, business travel or
emissions by influencing a company’s share price. investments.


CARBON RANKING 7
METHODOLOGY
The ET Carbon Rankings have been designed THE CARBON RANKINGS HAVE BEEN
specifically to encourage disclosure and DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO ENCOURAGE
verification, paving the way for absolute emissions DISCLOSURE AND VERIFICATION
reductions.

In essence, the ET Carbon Ranking methodology
follows a three step process based on four
information categories, as detailed below.

Step 1: Categorisation

Companies are placed into one of four data
categories:

1) Public, Complete, Verified
2) Public, Complete, Unverified
COMPANIES WITH EXTERNALLY VERIFIED
3) Public, Incomplete DATA WILL ALWAYS FIND THEMSELVES
RANKED ABOVE THOSE WITH
4) No Public Data UNVERIFIED DATA

Step 2: Inference
Wherever data is not complete, which means
Scope 1 and 2 have not been reported for the
company’s entire operations or they have not been
expressed in a sufficiently clear manner or there is
simply no public data available, a worst case figure
is inferred; based on the highest reported
emissions intensity by any company within the
same sector across the full universe of companies
within the ET Carbon Rankings. This is designed
specifically to encourage disclosure and to avoid
penalising companies honest enough to report their
emissions figures.

The same principle is applied but in a slightly
different manner to Scope 3 emissions. Because of
the controversial nature of Scope 3 emissions - by
definition they are not under the ownership or
direct control of a company, nor do they always COMPANIES THAT DO NOT HAVE ANY
lend themselves to easy calculation or PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA ARE
identification, it does not appear logical to the EIO BENCHMARKED AGAINST THE HIGHEST
for these emissions to be given equal weight to INTENSITY FROM THE WORST PERFORMING
Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which clearly are the COMPANY WITHIN THEIR SECTOR
responsibility of the company.


CARBON RANKING 8
METHODOLOGY
The EIO's current approach is to give a 50%
weighting to any fully reported and verified
Scope 3 emission total reported according to
the 15 categories of the new Scope 3 standard.
Scope 3 Categories:
This is then added to the Scope 1 and 2 total that
Upstream has already been reported. Whenever a company
does not report a complete and verified Scope 3
1. Purchased goods and services total, exactly the same inference method described
2. Capital goods for Scope 1 and 2 is employed for Scope 3
3. Fuel- and energy-related activities (not emissions.
included in scope 1 or scope 2) The company in the relevant sector across the full
4. Upstream transportation and distribution universe of ET Rankings with the highest reported
5. Waste generated in operations
Scope 3 figure is identified and used to infer a
6. Business travel
figure for the remaining companies, thus avoiding
7. Employee commuting
penalising a company for being honest enough to
8. Upstream leased asset
report a high figure. The only route by which a
Downstream company can avoid having an inferred figure
allocated to them is to report its own complete and
9. Downstream transportation and verified figure, and if that happens to be lower than
distribution the existing benchmark, then it gains the
10. Processing of sold products advantage of a higher ranking position by virtue of
11. Use of sold products its lower emission total. If it is higher, then all the
12. End-of-life treatment of sold products remaining non disclosing companies are
13. Downstream leased assets benchmarked against it.
14. Franchises In summary, combined emissions intensity across
15. Investment the three Scopes is calculated according to the
following formula: 100% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions
intensity (disclosed or inferred) + 50% of Scope 3
emissions intensity (disclosed or inferred).

Step 3: Ranking
Once companies have been categorised according
to the completeness and verification of their Scope
1 & 2 data, they are firstly ranked according to the
number of Scope 3 categories disclosed.
Secondly, companies are ranked within the
Disclosure Categories, according to their combined
emissions intensity across the three Scopes.
Please refer to the inference method as described
IT IS KEY THAT SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS ARE in the previous section for detail on how companies
IDENTIFIED, REPORTED AND not providing complete data are treated.
ULTIMATELY REDUCED


CARBON RANKING 9
METHODOLOGY
Accounting for size
Emissions intensity is calculated using turnover FOR A COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF THE
figures from the same financial year as their latest METHODOLOGY BEHIND THE ET CARBON
publicly available (at time of publication) reported RANKINGS PLEASE VISIT EIO.ORG.UK
emissions.
Whilst there is no universally accepted system of
establishing relative company size, turnover is
generally accepted within the field of carbon
accounting as a reasonable metric to determine
company size.
Where one or more companies have the same
emissions intensity within the Rankings, smaller
market capitalisation is given an advantage. The
justification for this is simple: larger companies
have greater resources to both improve their
reporting and realign their business towards a low
carbon model.

Diagram
showing scopes
and emissions
from the GHG
Protocol


SPOTLIGHT ON 10
SCOPE 3
Global Scope 3 Analysis
Figure 1.

Average Scope 3 Scope 3 of benchmarked company
9000
Carbon Intensity (tCO2e/$M turnover)

6000

3000

0

Global Scope 3 Benchmark companies Figure 2.

No. of Scope 3 Scope 3 Sector Scope 3
Sector Benchmark Company Name
Categories Disclosed Intensity Intensity Average

Oil & Gas OMV 1 4,246.31 1,133.87

Basic Materials Rio Tinto 3 8,547.13 1,222.48

Industrials Delta Electronics 1 6,130.53 238.84

Consumer Goods Reckitt Benckiser Group 4 2,115.76 289.92

Health Care Baxter Int. 6 166.90 19.50

Consumer Services IC Hotels Group 4 2,665.29 101.85

Telecommunications Sprint Nextel 2 64.51 6.02

Utilities RWE 3 1,998.50 536.19

Financials British Land 4 206.53 7.76

Technology Motorola Mobility 4 1,103.38 141.30


SPOTLIGHT ON 11
SCOPE 3

BRICS 300 Scope 3 Analysis Figure 3.

ET BRICS 300 32 300

0 100 200 300

Total no. of companies
Companies disclosing some Scope 3 emissions data

BRICS 300 Extent of Scope 3 Disclosure Figure 4.

Scope 3
Number of
categories
companies
disclosed

1 10

2 7

3 5

4 4

5 2

6 4

7 -

8 -

9 -

10 -

11 -

12 - This clearly demonstrates that the BRICS
region still has a long way to go in terms of
13 -
beginning to account for the full extent of its
14 - companies’ Scope 3 emissions.
15 -


SPOTLIGHT ON 12
INFERENCE:
SCOPE 3
Figure 5.

As these three companies from the Basic Materials sector fail to disclose all 15 Scope 3 categories
as defined by the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard , their disclosed Scope 3
figures are considered to be incomplete, and therefore they are given an inferred Scope 3 figure.

No. of S3 Disclosed
Disclosure & Carbon Total Scope 3 Inferred Scope
Company Name Categories Scope 3
Verification status Rank Emissions 3 Intensity
Disclosed Intensity
No Public Data 276 China Shenhua - No Public Data - 8,547.13

No Public Data 277 NMDC - No Public Data - 8,547.13

No Public Data 278 Coal India - No Public Data - 8,547.13

Rio Tinto is one of the Scope 3 benchmark companies for the ET
Global Universe, which means it is the company with the highest
disclosed Scope 3 intensity within the Basic Materials sector.

Scope 3
Sector Benchmark Company Name
Intensity

Oil & Gas OMV 4,246.31

Basic Materials Rio Tinto 8,547.13
Industrials Delta Electronics 6,130.53

Consumer Goods Reckitt Benckiser Group 2,115.76

Health Care Baxter Int. 166.90

Consumer Services IC Hotels Group 2,665.29

Telecommunications Sprint Nextel 64.51

Utilities RWE 1,998.50

Financials British Land 206.53

Technology Motorola Mobility 1,103.38


SPOTLIGHT ON 13
INFERENCE:
SCOPE 1 & 2
Figure 6.

American Electric Power is the company with the highest
emissions intensity disclosing complete data within the
Electricity Industry across the entire ET Global Universe.

No. of S3
Disclosure & Verification Carbon Absolute Emissions Emissions Intensity
Company Name Categories
status Rank tCO2e (Scope 1+2) (tCO2e/$M turnover)
Disclosed
Complete & Unverified 126 Potash Corporation 10,315,000.00 1,518.86 -

Complete & Unverified 127 Xcel Energy 80,500,000.00 7,815.68 -

Complete & Unverified 128 American Electric Power 134,000,000.00 9,288.14 -

Emissions Intensity No. of S3
Disclosure & Verification Carbon Absolute Emissions
Company Name (tCO2e/$M Categories
status Rank tCO2e (Scope 1+2)
turnover) Disclosed
No Public Data 299 ENN Energy Holdings No Public Data 9,288.14 -

No Public Data 300 Sabesp No Public Data 9,288.14 -

Here, ENN Energy Holdings and Sabesp have
been benchmarked against the highest disclosing
company with complete data from the Electricity
industry. This means they have been given an
inferred intensity of 9,288.14 tCO2e/$M turnover.
This is not an approximation of their emissions but a
means of making sure that the highest disclosing
company in the sector is not penalised for being
honest enough to report a large figure.

As both companies have the same inferred intensity
figure, the company with the largest market
capitalisation is placed lower down the Ranking.


RANKING 14
ANALYSIS

The disclosure and verification landscape of the ET BRICS 300 Figure 7.

Complete & Verified
Complete & Verified 11%

Complete & Unverified
Complete & Unverified 7%

Incomplete data
Incomplete data 15%

No public data 66%

0% 40% 80%

Complete data versus verified data
Figure 8.

Complete 33 55

0 300

Companies with complete data

Companies with complete & verified data


RANKING 15
ANALYSIS
ET BRICS 300 Top 5 Figure 9.

S1+2 Scope 3 S1+2 + 50%
ET S1+2 Disclosure &
Company Name emissions Categories Inferred S3
Rank Intensity Verification status
(tCO2e) disclosed Intensity
1 Gold Fields 6,400,000 1,157.06 8 5,430.63 Complete & Verified

2 Santander BR 19,563 0.56 6 103.83 Complete & Verified

3 Vale 19,990,000 398.72 6 4,672.28 Complete & Verified

4 Itau Unibanco 34,196 0.56 5 103.83 Complete & Verified

5 Inf. Development Finance 4,066 4.50 4 107.77 Complete & Verified

Topping the 2011 ET BRICS 300 Carbon respective carbon intensities of 103.83,
Ranking is the South African based precious 4,672.28 and 103.83 (tCO2e/$M turnover).
metal producer, Gold Fields, with a combined Infrastructure Development Finance, the
emission intensity of 5,430.63 (tCO2e/$M Indian based, integrated infrastructure finance
turnover). company, ranks fifth with a combined
Following it are the Brazilian based bank emissions intensity of 107.77 (tCO2e/$M
Santander BR, mining corporation Vale and turnover).
the Latin American bank Itau Unibanco, with Emissions Intensity is measured in tCOe/$M turnover)

ET BRICS 300 Bottom 5 Figure 10.

S1+2 Scope 3 S1+2 + 50%
ET S1+2 Disclosure &
Company Name emissions Categories Inferred S3
(tCO2e) disclosed Intensity
296 Federal Grid Company no public data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No public data

297 Cheung Kong Holdiings. no public data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No public data

298 NTPC no public data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No public data

299 ENN Energy Holdings no public data 11,162.43 - 12,161.68 No public data

300 Sabesp no public data 11,162.43 - 12,161.68 No public data

Last among BRICS 300 biggest companies is the company have been ranked at 298th place, as
Brazilian state owned water and sewage they also fail to publicly disclose data.
company Sabesp, The Hong Kong property development and
ENN Energy Holdings, the Honk Kong based strategic investment company, Cheung Kong
investment holdings company which are engaged Holdings, rank at 297th place. At place 296 is
principally in the investment, operation and the Federal Grid Company, the operator and
management of gas pipeline infrastructure rank at manager of Russia’s electricity transmission grid
299th place. NTPC, India’s largest power system.
(Emissions Intensity is measured in tCOe/$M turnover)


RANKING 16
ANALYSIS
Highest and Lowest Absolute Emitters:
Scope 1 & 2
Taken from the 55 Companies reporting complete data
Lowest Absolute Emitters (Scope 1 & 2 Only) Figure 11.

Scope 1+2
Absolute ET Scope 1+2 Scope 1+2 + 50% Disclosure &
Company Name emissions
Rank Rank Intensity Inferred S3 Intensity Verification status
(tCO2e)

1 49 BMF Bovespa 843 0.98 104.24 Complete & Unverified

2 7 Redecard 1,134 0.72 103.98 Complete & Verified

3 38 MRV 1,439 0.77 104.03 Complete & Unverified

4 5 Infr. Dev. Finance 4,066 4.50 107.77 Complete & Verified

5 43 Lojas Renner 5,118 3.09 1,335.73 Complete & Unverified

Figure 11 lists the five lowest absolute emitters BMF Bovespa has the lowest recorded absolute
from those disclosing complete Scope 1 & 2 emissions, but rank relatively low in the ET
information. Verification status is included on the rankings, as they have failed to verify their data.
right but does not affect the ranking. Likewise, MRV and Lojas Renner, report low
emissions but rank at 38th and 43rd place
respectively, as they report unverified data.

Highest Absolute Emitters (Scope 1 & 2 Only) Figure 12.

Scope 1+2
Absolute ET Scope 1+2 Scope 1+2 + 50% Disclosure &
Company Name emissions
Rank Rank Intensity Inferred S3 Intensity Verification status
(tCO2e)

51 22 Reliance Industries 20,089,280 683.36 2,806.52 Complete & Verified

52 23 TNK-BP Holdings 26,000,000 904.77 3,027.93 Complete & Verified

53 30 CLP Holdings 41,793,000 5,561.69 6,560.94 Complete & Verified

54 21 Petrobras 62,840,000 599.48 2,722.63 Complete & Verified

55 17 Sasol 74,976,000 4,705.52 6,828.68 Complete & Verified

Figure 12 lists the five largest absolute emitters Sasol, with the highest absolute emissions for
from those disclosing complete Scope 1 & 2 Scope 1 and 2, ranks at 17th place as they have
information, ignoring verification status. not only fully disclosed their scope 1 and 2
emissions but have also partially disclosed their
The five highest emitters of the BRICS 300, rank scope 3 emissions.
relatively well in the ET Rank as they have all put
complete and fully verified data in the public
domain.


GEOGRAPHICAL 17
ANALYSIS
Summary
Countries leading the field of disclosure Figure 13.

South Africa 31% 56% 56%

Brazil 22% 36% 36%

India 7%
11% 11%

Russia 3%

China 3%4%
4%
31% 56%

% of companies reporting complete data
% of companies reporting complete & verified data

It is interesting to note that the percentage of Indeed in Russia verification was undertaken by
companies reporting complete data is below the sole company to report complete data. This
60%, even in the country with the highest degree places South Africa and Brazil well in the lead of
of reporting. This is indicative that though the regional emissions reporting and verification.
BRICS are making progress in terms of GHG
However, all five of the BRICS countries still have
emissions reporting, there is still a long way to go.
significant room for improvement.
The degree to which there is verification of data
by an independent source is particularly low in
Russia and China both showing only 3% of
companies having their emissions data verified.


GEOGRAPHICAL 18
ANALYSIS
Spotlight on: Brazil
Top 5 Figure 14.
Absolute Scope 3 Scope 1+2 +
Country ET Scope 1+2 Disclosure &
Company Name Emissions tCO2e Categories 50% Inferred
Rank Rank Intensity Verification status
(Scope 1+2) disclosed S3 Intensity
1 (2) Santander BR 19,563 0.56 6 103.83 Complete & Verified

2 (3) Vale 19,990,000 398.72 6 4,672.28 Complete & Verified

3 (4) Itau Unibanco 34,196 0.56 5 103.83 Complete & Verified

4 (7) Redecard 1,134 0.72 3 103.98 Complete & Verified

5 (8) Cemig PN 331,795 42.82 3 127.97 Complete & Verified

Bottom 5 Figure 15.
162 (250) Gerdau PN No Public Data 2,514.91 - 6,788.48 No Public Data

163 (253) Sider Nacional No Public Data 2,514.91 - 6,788.48 No Public Data

164 (259) HRT Petroleo No Public Data 4,705.52 - 6,828.68 No Public Data

165 (265) OGX Petroleo No Public Data 4,705.52 - 6,828.68 No Public Data

166 (300) Sabesp No Public Data 11,162.43 - 12,161.68 No Public Data

Spotlight on: Russia
Top 5 Figure 16.
1 (23) TNK-BP Holdings 26,000,000 904.77 - 3,027.93 Complete & Verified

2 (78) RusHydro No public data 2,248.83 - 2,333.99 Incomplete

3 (86) Novolipetsk Steel No public data 2,514.91 - 6,788.48 Incomplete

4 (87) OJSC Novolipetsk No public data 2,514.91 - 6,788.48 Incomplete

5 (89) Tatneft No public data 4,705.52 - 6,828.68 Incomplete

Bottom 5 Figure 17.
30 (274) OJSC Polyus Gold No Public Data 2,993.71 - 7,267.28 No Public Data

31 (275) Polyus Gold No Public Data 2,993.71 - 7,267.28 No Public Data

32 (284) LSR Group No Public Data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

33 (295) Inter RAO UES No Public Data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No Public Data

34 (296) Federal Grid Co. No Public Data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No Public Data


GEOGRAPHICAL 19
ANALYSIS
Spotlight on: China
Top 5 Figure 22.
Absolute Scope Scope 3 Scope 1+2 +
Country ET Disclosure &
Company Name Emissions tCO2e 1+2 Categories 50% Inferred
Rank Rank Verification status
(Scope 1+2) Intensity disclosed S3 Intensity
1 (58) China Telecom Incomplete 149.35 - 181.61 Incomplete

2 (97) China Coal Energy Incomplete 2,993.71 - 7,267.28 Incomplete

3 (124) China Minsheng Banking No public data 366.30 - 469.57 No public data

4 (137) PICC Property & CLTY. No public data 366.30 - 469.57 No public data

5 (150) China CITIC Bank No public data 366.30 - 469.57 No public data

Bottom 5 Figure 23.
38 (272) Yanzhou Coal Mining No public data 2,993.71 - 7,267.28 No Public Data

39 (276) China Shenhua No public data 2,993.71 - 7,267.28 No Public Data

40 (285) China COMMS.CON. No public data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

41 (288) China NAT.BLDG.MRA. No public data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

42 (290) Anhui Conch Cement Hldg. No public data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

Spotlight on: Hong Kong (China)
Top 5 Figure 24.
1 (30) CLP Hldg. 41,793,000 5,561.69 - 6,560.94 Complete & Verified

2 (32) Swire Pacific 16,125,825 4,292.54 - 7,357.81 Complete & Verified

3 (33) Power Assets Hdg. 8,650,000 6,483.14 - 7,482.39 Complete & Verified

4 (46) Lenovo Group 66,234 4.43 1 556.12 Complete & Unverified

5 (51) HYSAN Development 35,813 157.81 - 261.07 Complete & Unverified

Bottom 5 Figure 25.
67 (289) NWS Hldg. No Public Data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

68 (292) GCL-Poly Energy Hldg. No Public Data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No Public Data

69 (293) China Res. Power Hdg. No Public Data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No Public Data

70 (297) Cheung Kong Infr. Hdg. No Public Data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No Public Data

71 (299) ENN Energy Hldg. No Public Data 11,162.43 - 12,161.68 No Public Data


GEOGRAPHICAL 20
ANALYSIS
Spotlight on: India
Top 5 Figure 18.
1 (5) Infr. Dev. Finance 4,066 4.50 4 107.77 Complete & Verified

2 (12) Larsen & Toubro 394,320 50.09 2 3,115.36 Complete & Verified

3 (19) Bharat Petroelum 4,413,370 165.99 - 2,289.15 Complete & Verified

4 (22) Reliance Industries 20,089,280 683.36 - 2,806.52 Complete & Verified

5 (48) Tata Power 11,180,307 4,124.65 1 5,123.90 Complete & Unverified

Bottom 5 Figure 19.
52 (286) Jaiprakash Associates No Public Data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

53 (287) Grasim Industries No Public Data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

54 (291) Asian Paints No Public Data 4,735.84 - 7,801.11 No Public Data

55 (294) Power Grid Corp. India No Public Data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No Public Data

56 (298) NTPC No Public Data 9,288.14 - 10,287.39 No Public Data

Spotlight on: South Africa
Top 5 Figure 20.
1 (1) Gold Fields 6,400,000 1,157.06 8 5,430.63 Complete & Verified

2 (6) Woolworths Hdg. 384,436 140.25 4 1,472.89 Complete & Verified

3 (11) Standard Bank Group 203,929 9.18 2 112.45 Complete & Verified

4 (17) Sasol 74,976,000 4,705.52 1 6,828.68 Complete & Verified

5 (18) ABSA Group 415,000 36.25 - 139.51 Complete & Verified

Bottom 5 Figure 21.
35 (201) Spar Group No Public Data 505.91 - 1,853.22 No Public Data

36 (202) Shoprite No Public Data 505.91 - 1,853.22 No Public Data

37 (206) Pioneer Food Group No Public Data 795.34 - 1,853.22 No Public Data

38 (210) Tiger Brands No Public Data 795.34 - 1,853.22 No Public Data

39 (281) REMGRO No Public Data 4,292.54 - 7,357.81 No Public Data


EMISSIONS 21
LANDSCAPE
BRICS versus BASICs
The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South THE BRICS (BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA,
Africa) is a grouping of emerging economies that AND CHINA, AND SOUTH AFRICA)
have shown particularly rapid economic IS A GROUPING OF EMERGING
development in recent years, and have adopted ECONOMIES THAT HAVE SHOWN
regulatory policies aimed at liberalising their PARTICULARLY RAPID ECONOMIC
economies. Already, the BRICS represent over DEVELOPMENT IN RECENT YEARS
25% of world GDP, up from 18% in 1990. In 2008,
these five countries represented 31% of global
energy use and 35% of CO2 emissions from fuel
combustion. These shares are likely to rise further
in coming years if their strong economic
performance continues (IEA, 2010).
Russia is the odd one out among the pack, from
both an economic and an emissions perspective,
having industrialised far earlier than the other
BRICS. It has a much higher GDP per capita as
well as higher standards of living and education,
and being an Annex 1 country in the Kyoto
Protocol bound Russia to make GHG emissions
reductions during the first commitment period while
the other BRICS would not be obligated until the
second phase beginning in 2012. The latter fact
aligns Russia more closely with developed
countries than the other BRICS when it comes to
climate change mitigation.
Recognising the common climate challenges facing RECOGNISING THE COMMON CLIMATE
them, Brazil, South Africa, India and China are now CHALLENGES FACING THEM, BRAZIL,
part of a geo-political alliance known as BASIC SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA AND CHINA ARE
(Building and Strengthening Institutional Capacities NOW PART OF A GEO-POLITICAL
on Climate Change: www.basic-project.net). This is ALLIANCE KNOWN AS BASIC (BUILDING
a forum for collaboration among experts from
AND STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL
various developing countries working on
adaptation and mitigation action plans. These CAPACITIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE
countries have taken a united position on emission
reductions, supporting the establishment of
quantified emission reduction commitments for the
continuation of the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) with no gap between the first and second
commitment periods.
Domestically the BASICs are all exploring market-
based mechanisms. For example, India is currently
setting up a Perform-Achieve-Trade (PAT) scheme
promoting energy efficiency, and Brazil is
considering the development of regional carbon
markets.


EMISSIONS 22
LANDSCAPE
The BASIC governments also agree that without
support from the developed world, it will not be
possible for developing countries to implement
policies and take appropriate measures to mitigate
climate change.
In 2010, the Cancun summit established the Green
AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR Climate Fund (GCF) for this purpose. The GCF
THE MEASUREMENT, REPORTING handles the funds and is charged with its
AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE distribution, but has not provided a mechanism to
raise the money - its goals of $30 billion for
GAS EMISSIONS, IS ON THE AGENDA
2010-2012 and $100 billion annually by 2020 are
FOR THE DURBAN TALKS IN 2011
making slow progress. The final details of the
administration of the GCF , as well the need for the
internationally standardised measurement,
reporting and verification of greenhouse gas
emissions, are on the agenda for COP17 in
Durban in November 2011.
Asian giants
In terms of total carbon dioxide emissions, China
and India are the first and third largest emitters
globally, according to data published by the US
Energy Information Administration (US EIA), though
on a per capita basis both are far down the list.
Asian neighbours China and India are often cited
together in the climate change debate, with
similarities such as a large population, expanding
economies and significant production activities of
developed countries being outsourced to these
countries. However, significant differences exist,
such as the fact that China's total and per capita
carbon dioxide emissions are much higher than
India’s, as is its GDP per capita.
IN TERMS OF TOTAL CARBON DIOXIDE Despite their rapid economic growth, both China
EMISSIONS, CHINA AND INDIA ARE THE and India are relatively poor countries compared
FIRST AND THIRD LARGEST EMITTERS with developed countries, making raising incomes
GLOBALLY, THOUGH ON A PER CAPITA a high priority and hence it seems unlikely that
BASIS BOTH ARE FAR DOWN THE LIST either country will accept binding stringent
emission reductions targets in the foreseeable
future. Both countries have indicated a preference
for intensity targets (GHGs emissions per unit of
GDP) over absolute targets: China has pledged to
reduce the emissions intensity of its economy by
40/45% in 2020 compared to 2005, and India by
20/25%. In both cases these emissions intensity
targets appear to be part of a national strategy to
increase energy efficiency rather than part of a
deliberate plan to reduce global warming (Massetti,
2011).


EMISSIONS 23
LANDSCAPE
Chinese Emission Landscape
China has historically argued that industrialized CHINA HAS HISTORICALLY ARGUED THAT
countries should lead in mitigating emissions INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES SHOULD
since they bear primary responsibility for the LEAD IN MITIGATING EMISSIONS SINCE
historical build-up of GHGs. This principle of THEY BEAR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
‘common but differentiated’ responsibilities was FOR THE HISTORICAL BUILD-UP OF GHGS
agreed in the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
However, China is also taking signiﬁcant domestic
action to reduce its own GHG emissions and to
participate in the CDM regime. In June 2007,
China released its National Climate Change
Program, outlining activities, incentives, and
targets to mitigate GHG emissions and to adapt to
the consequences of potential climate change,
including lowering its energy intensity, increasing
renewable energy use by 2020, increasing energy
efﬁciency standards, promoting the development
of nuclear power, and development of a coal-bed
methane capture industry.
National climate change goals have continued to
be included in China’s Five-Year Plan framework.
In 2009 the Chinese government announced the
target to cut the country’s CO2 emissions per unit
GDP in 2020 by 40% - 45% compared to the level
o f 2 0 0 5 , a n d C l i m a t e A c t i o n Tr a c k e r
(www.climateactiontracker.org) reports that recent
energy and emissions data indicates that China
will exceed this pledge, though faster than
expected economic growth is likely to lead to total
emissions in 2020 being higher than previous
estimates. Revised targets for the period
2011-2015 aim for a decrease of 17% in China’s CHINA’S COMMITMENTS FOR EMISSIONS
carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP, an CONTROL OVER THE NEXT DECADE ARE
increase in the share of non‐fossil fuels in primary NOT CONTINGENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL
energy consumption, and a decrease of 16% in NEGOTIATIONS OR ON COMMITMENTS BY
energy consumption relative to GDP. ANY OTHER COUNTRY
China’s commitments for emissions control over
the next decade are not contingent on the
international negotiations or on commitments by
any other country. It is exploring new policy
options, including carbon taxes and carbon
markets, and new market-based mechanisms to
control the increase in GHGs. In July 2011 the
Chinese government announced that it will pilot a


EMISSIONS 24
LANDSCAPE
carbon trading scheme and build a market for
emissions trading to meet pollution goals. To get
the scheme going, Beijing will widen the difference
IN JULY 2011 THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT
in electricity tariffs between power-intensive
ANNOUNCED THAT IT WILL PILOT A sectors and other industries, improve laws,
CARBON TRADING SCHEME AND BUILD regulation and taxation policies to encourage
A MARKET FOR EMISSIONS TRADING energy conservation, and ask financial groups to
TO MEET POLLUTION GOALS fund low-carbon emission projects.

Indian Emissions Landscape
Like China, India has consistently resisted any
attempts for hard limits on its own GHG emissions
expecting developed countries to take the lead.
India has also rejected attempts at imposing an
emissions verification scheme and is instead
pushing for relaxed restrictions on intellectual
property rights for climate mitigation and
adaptation technologies, equitable access to
sustainable development practices, and unilateral
trade measures.

INDIA HAS REJECTED ATTEMPTS AT India announced its first National Action Plan on
Climate Change in 2008, listing technology policies
IMPOSING AN EMISSIONS VERIFICATION
such as energy efficiency, mandatory energy audits
SCHEME AND IS INSTEAD PUSHING FOR
for large energy consuming industries, and
RELAXED RESTRICTIONS ON development of solar energy, but no targets for
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR reduction of emissions total or intensity. Domestic
CLIMATE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION policy has continued to develop with an Expert
TECHNOLOGIES Group on Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive
Growth, a multi-stakeholder group given the
mandate to develop a roadmap for India to achieve
low-carbon development. The government is also
trying to incentivise industry to move towards
better energy efficiency and lower emission
procedures by introducing market-driven
initiatives, such as the Perform, Achieve & Trade
(PAT) system, which aims to enhance cost
effectiveness of improvements in energy efficiency
in energy - intensive large industries and facilities
through certification of energy savings that could
be traded, and a federal approach to mitigation
and adaptation with State-level Action Plans that
INDIA ANNOUNCED ITS FIRST NATIONAL require states to implement concrete actions to
ACTION PLAN ON CLIMATE CHANGE IN address climate change.
2008, LISTING TECHNOLOGY POLICIES India has not mandated any GHG emissions
BUT NO TARGETS FOR REDUCTION OF reduction targets for industrial sectors to date but
EMISSIONS TOTAL OR INTENSITY Indian businesses appear to have been proactive


EMISSIONS 25
LANDSCAPE
in setting their own voluntary targets. The majority
of Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) respondents
have assigned a senior level committee to develop
their climate change strategy, and are increasingly
participating in advocacy on climate change.

Brazilian Emission Landscape
Brazil has the lowest total CO2 emissions of any of BRAZIL HAS THE LOWEST TOTAL CO2
the BRICS. Its major sources of GHG emissions EMISSIONS OF ANY OF THE BRICS
are unsustainable land use, large livestock
numbers, and large scale use of fossil fuels in its
mineral processing industries as well as
deforestation. Brazil's energy sector actually
contributes little to its GHG emissions since the
majority of its power comes from hydroelectricity,
of which Brazil is one of the world’s largest BRAZIL’S ENERGY MATRIX IS ONE OF
producers. Brazil’s energy matrix is one of the THE CLEANEST IN THE WORLD WITH
cleanest in the world with renewables accounting RENEWABLES ACCOUNTING FOR
for 44% of its total primary energy supply (IEA, 44% OF ITS TOTAL PRIMARY
2010). ENERGY SUPPLY
In a similar stance to China and India, until recently
the Brazilian government took the view that since
the accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere was
principally the fault of the developed countries,
they must take the majority of necessary actions to
tackle the problem. As Brazil’s vulnerability to
climate change became more apparent it
established a ‘National Plan on Climate Change’ in
2008 that aimed to increase energy efﬁciency,
maintaining a high proportion of Brazil’s electricity
supply from renewable sources, increase use of
biofuels in the transport sector, reduce the rate of
de-forestation, and eliminate net loss of forest
coverage. A Business Council for Sustainable
Development aims to turn these goals into
practical initiatives.
The Brazilian National Fund on Climate Change
was established in December 2009 to allocate a
portion of the government’s revenue from oil
production to mitigate the impact of oil production THE BRAZILIAN NATIONAL FUND ON
and combat climate change by providing grants CLIMATE CHANGE WAS ESTABLISHED IN
and loans to adaptation and mitigation initiatives. DECEMBER 2009 TO ALLOCATE A PORTION
The fund is overseen by the Ministry of OF THE GOVERNMENT’S REVENUE FROM
Environment and operated by the National Social OIL PRODUCTION TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT
and Economic Development Bank. OF OIL PRODUCTION AND COMBAT CLIMATE


EMISSIONS 26
LANDSCAPE South African Emission Landscape
US EIA DATA FOR 2009 PLACES SOUTH South Africa acknowledges the threat posed by
climate change due to GHG emissions and has
AFRICA TWELFTH IN THE RANKING OF
begun to address the issue through national
COUNTRIES BY THEIR TOTAL CARBON
regulations, regional coordination with other
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, WITH THE COUNTRY Southern African Development Community (SADC)
AS A WHOLE RESPONSIBLE FOR 451 nations, and participation in international initiatives.
MILLION TONS CO2 US EIA data for 2009 places South Africa twelfth in
the ranking of countries by their total carbon
dioxide emissions, with the country as a whole
responsible for 451 million tons CO2. The last year
that the South African Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism published emissions data by
sector was 1994, which indicated that the energy
sector was responsible for the bulk of the total
emissions, due in large part to South Africa’s
reliance on domestic coal for fuel. The industrial
sector, transportation, agricultural processes, and
waste management account for approximately a
quarter of the total carbon equivalent emissions.
In 1997, South Africa ratiﬁed and adopted the
SOUTH AFRICA HAS LAID OUT A NATIONAL
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGY,
Change and the Kyoto Protocol. It has created a
WHICH OUTLINES GUIDELINES AND A National Committee on Climate Change and laid
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAMME FOR out a National Climate Change Response Strategy,
KEEPING AN INVENTORY OF which outlines guidelines and a sustainable energy
GHG EMISSIONS programme for keeping an inventory of GHG
emissions.
South Africa now publishes an annual
Environmental Sustainability Indicators Technical
Report, which deﬁnes the efforts and actions the
government and industry must take to create an
effective framework for the monitoring and
reporting of GHG emissions along with identifying
areas of progress and problems. The report
touches on 20 environmental sustainability
indicators gleaned through analysis of a wide array
of data sets.
THE STATUS OF SOUTH AFRICA AS THE The status of South Africa as the most
economically developed and largest emitter of
MOST ECONOMICALLY DEVELOPED AND
GHG emissions among Southern African
LARGEST EMITTER OF GHG EMISSIONS
Development Community (SADC) nations, places it
AMONG SADC NATIONS, PLACES IT AS THE as the de facto leader of sustainability policy in
DE FACTO LEADER OF SUSTAINABILITY Sub-Saharan Africa. The current focus of the SADC
POLICY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA is on mitigating the effects of climate change
already present in Souther n Africa while
establishing a system of linking sustainability
methodologies and regulations between countries.


EMISSIONS 27
LANDSCAPE
Russian Emission Landscape
Russia is the world’s fourth highest carbon dioxide ON A PER CAPITA BASIS RUSSIA THE
emitter based on US EIA data, ranking third HIGHEST CO2 EMISSIONS OF THE BRICS
amongst the BRICS in 2009, below both China and COUNTRIES WITH 11.2 TONS CO2
India. On a per capita basis, however, Russia has PER CAPITA IN 2009
the highest CO2 emissions of the BRICS countries
with 11.2 tons CO2 per capita in 2009 (EIA, 2010).
A significant amount of Russia’s GHG emissions
derive from its large petroleum industry, particularly
from its natural gas extraction and distribution
processes.
In October 2004, the Russian Parliament ratified
the country’s signature of the Kyoto Protocol,
agreeing to limit its GHG emissions by the end of
the Protocol’s first commitment period (2008-2012)
at the level of country’s emissions in 1990.
However, Russia’s GHG emissions fell by 34%
between 1990-1998, due to the economic
downturn after the collapse of the former Soviet
Union. Gradual increases as a result of economic
recovery are expected to be sustained, and future
emission predictions for Russia suggest that the
‘Business as Usual’ scenario will result in emissions
in 2020 being 25% below 1990 levels (Wagner et RUSSIA’S REVISED KYOTO PLEDGE IN
al., 2009). Therefore, even Russia’s revised Kyoto
2010, TO REDUCE EMISSIONS BY 15-25%
pledge in 2010, to reduce emissions by 15-25%
relative 1990 levels by 2020, will likely require no RELATIVE 1990 LEVELS BY 2020, WILL
additional investments or structural reforms (World LIKELY REQUIRE NO ADDITIONAL
Bank, 2008). INVESTMENTS OR STRUCTURAL REFORMS

Domestic policy in Russia has lagged that of the
other BRICS, though it has a number of energy
efficiency policies, including the 2009 Energy
Efficiency Legislation, and substantial participation
in Joint Implementation Mechanism projects under
the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, a non
legally binding Climate Doctrine was approved. It
set out national strategic guidelines and targets
and formed a foundation for future climate change-
related policy.
Although Russia has participated in international IN 2011 THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
climate negotiations to date, in 2011 the Russian INDICATED THAT IT WOULD NOT JOIN A
government indicated that it would not join a new NEW KYOTO AGREEMENT POST 2012
Kyoto agreement post 2012, as it would be unlikely
to require emissions cuts from developing
countries.


EMISSIONS 28
LANDSCAPE
International Outlook

NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE IN THE The Kyoto Protocol will remain in force until 2012,
but so far there is no legally binding emissions
BUILD UP TO DURBAN LATER THIS
treaty to replace it. The Copenhagen (2009) and
YEAR, WITH UNFCCC EXECUTIVE
Cancun (2010) climate conferences both produced
SECRETARY CHRISTIAN FIGUERES accords, but lacked binding commitments.
URGING COUNTRIES TO PUSH AHEAD Negotiation continues in the build up to Durban
WITH THEIR WORK TO AIM FOR later this year, with UNFCCC Executive Secretary
ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT STEP IN Christian Figueres urging countries to push ahead
ADDRESSING GLOBAL CLIMATE with their work to aim for another signiﬁcant step in
CHANGE addressing global climate change in 2011 at
Bangkok’s summit (UNFCCC 2011). In the
meantime, market-based schemes are beginning
to occur at the national level in spite - or perhaps
because - of a lack of concrete agreement at the
international level.
In 2009, the EU launched the Climate and Energy
Package, aiming to reduce GHG emissions by
2020 by 20% compared to 1990 levels, to deliver
20% energy consumption from renewable sources,
and to reduce primary energy use by 20%
compared with projected levels. To achieve this,
the EU is reforming its Emissions Trading System
(ETS), producing new, binding targets for
renewable energy in Member States, providing a
legal framework to promote the development of
carbon capture and storage (CCS), and bringing in
the new Effort Sharing Decision. This supplements
existing legislation under the EU ETS, Renewables
Directive, and various efﬁciency and quality
standards across a range of industries. The
THE EU IS REFORMING ITS implementation of these is left to individual EU
EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM (ETS), Member States (European Commission 2010).
PRODUCING NEW, BINDING TARGETS
A US cap-and-trade scheme has to date failed to
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY IN
be passed into law, but inter-state and intra-state
MEMBER STATES, PROVIDING A schemes are becoming more prevalent in
LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO PROMOTE progressive states in the North-West and Mid-
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CARBON Atlantic. However, states such as Texas which are
CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS), AND still heavily reliant on fossil fuels and energy-
BRINGING IN THE NEW EFFORT intensive industries are resisting local and national
SHARING DECISION initiatives.


SECTORAL 29
ANALYSIS
Figure 26.
Sector: Oil & Gas
Sector Scope 1+2 Disclosure &
Company Name Cntry Emissions tCO2e Categories 50% Inferred
1 SESOL ZA 74,976,000 4,705.52 1 6,828.68 Complete & Verified

2 BHARAT PETROLEUM IN 4,413,370 165.99 - 2,289.15 Complete & Verified

3 PETORBRAS BR 62,840,000 599.48 - 2,722.63 Complete & Verified

Sector: Basic Materials
Company Name Cntry Emissions tCO2e Categories 50% Inferred S3
(Scope 1+2) disclosed Intensity
1 GOLD FIELDS ZA 6,400,000 1,157.06 8 5,430.63 Complete & Verified

2 VALE BR 19,990,000 398.72 6 4,672.28 Complete & Verified

3 FIBRIA BR 1,503,435 436.78 3 4,710.34 Complete & Verified

Sector: Industrials
1 LARSEN & TOUBRO IN 394,320 50.09 2 3,115.36 Complete & Verified

2 BIDVEST GROUP ZA 684,591 47.84 - 3,113.11 Complete & Verified

3 SWIRE PACIFIC HK 16,125,825 4,292.54 - 7,357.81 Complete & Verified

Sector: Consumer Goods
1 NATURA ON BR 10,218 3.30 1 1,061.18 Complete & Verified

2 COSAN ON BR 2,339,054 795.34 1 1,853.22 Complete & Verified

3 STEINHOFF INTL. ZA 823,881 131.59 - 1,189.47 Complete & Unverified

Sector: Health Care
1 DR REDDYS LAB. IN 278,000 177.23 - 260.68 Complete & Unverified

2 NETCARE ZA Incomplete 66.25 - 149.70 Incomplete

3 GSK PHARMS. IN Incomplete 237.23 - 320.68 Incomplete


2011 Carbon Ranking Report Brics 300

2011 Carbon Ranking Report Brics 300

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie 2011 Carbon Ranking Report Brics 300

Ähnlich wie 2011 Carbon Ranking Report Brics 300 (20)

2011 Carbon Ranking Report Brics 300